[CQ-Contest] When it's over, it's over (again)
ua9cdc at gmail.com
Fri Nov 11 00:43:40 EST 2016
Not everybody is using N1MM+
Every contest I run into at least a dozen ops who send their own call sign 3
times in 3 different ways leaving me to guess which one is correct. Two way
qso is a result of team work of sender and receiver. Your statement "
Generally it is the receiver..." still leaves room for sender mistakes.
73, Igor UA9CDC
----- Исходное сообщение -----
От: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu at w0mu.com>
Кому: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Отправлено: 11 ноября 2016 г. 6:12
Тема: Re: [CQ-Contest] When it's over, it's over (again)
> In this case the patient is the one penalized...........:(
> How can I know what you copied unless you are saying that all exchanges
> must be sent back and confirmed. If so you might have a tough time
> selling it. People like to contest for the speed runs. SS is loosing
> traction because of the very long, read boring exchange unless you are
> Generally it is the receiver that blows the exchange. I have yet to hear
> N1MM+ screw up sending my memory info.
> On 11/10/2016 4:48 PM, Igor Sokolov wrote:
>> Very interesting. But this approach begs the question: If prescription
>> finally got wrong (name of the medicine or dosage) who's fault is it?
>> Transmitter or receiver? Should not both sides be penalized?
>> 73, Igor UA9CDC
>> ----- Исходное сообщение ----- От: "Ward Silver" <hwardsil at gmail.com>
>> Кому: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>> Отправлено: 10 ноября 2016 г. 21:18
>> Тема: Re: [CQ-Contest] When it's over, it's over (again)
>>> > If it wasn't a penmanship contest then, why is it a typing contest
>>> At the risk of setting off a "plastic owl pointing true north by remote
>>> control" thread...
>>> Why is it that we have contests at all? It is to practice our ability
>>> to communicate and to reward effectiveness - in whatever form that
>>> takes. Part of it is knowing when the bands are open and closed. Part
>>> of it is assembling a station that works well. Part of it is having
>>> good operating technique. And part of it is accurately transcribing the
>>> exchanged information into whatever format is required.
>>> We are fond of claiming that contesting makes us good public service
>>> operators and all that back-patting we do for ourselves. Imagine we are
>>> relaying orders for prescription medicines needed in a disaster area.
>>> Is a typo in "hydrochlorothiazide" acceptable because we were in a
>>> hurry? ("Can you give me that phonetically before the band closes?") Is
>>> mistakenly changing a dosage of 50 mg to 500 mg OK because we hit 0
>>> twice? ("Whoa - how did that huge hairy bat get in here?") Of course
>>> not...we would recognize that as an error and we should do so when N0AX
>>> gets changed to N0XA. Each unforced error needs to produce negative
>>> feedback so we will work to lower our error rate. The CQ WW
>>> introduction of penalties for errors was exactly the right remedy for
>>> sloppy operating because it provides both carrot and stick to operate at
>>> a rate no faster than what optimizes effective operating. Nothing is
>>> error-free but a three-QSO penalty has a way of focusing the mind.
>>> At any rate (so to speak), anything noted during the period of
>>> competition is fair game for log correction. I would prefer in the long
>>> term that QSOs are submitted in real-time and verified shortly
>>> thereafter so that this whole notion of "log" goes away along with all
>>> the misbehavior and delays it engenders, but in the mean time,
>>> transcription into the submitted record of competition is as much a part
>>> of the contest as transmitting the information in the first place.
>>> 73, Ward N0AX
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest